Skip to main content

Full text of "History And Human Relation"

See other formats


is more likely to be hot with moral indignation—one
self-righteousness encountering another—than it would
have been if the contest had lain between two hard-^
headed eighteenth-century masters of realpolitik. In
such circumstances the contemporary historians on each
side will tend to follow suit, each locked in the combative
views of his own nation, and shrieking morality of that
particular kind which springs from self-righteousness*
That is one of the reasons why contemporary history
differs so greatly from what I have called academic
history. In all that I am saying I am really asserting,
moreover, that the self-righteous are not the true moral-
ists either in history or in life. Those who are less self-
righteous may face the world's problems more squarely,
even when they are less clever, than other people*

Pandit Nehru, when he was speaking at Columbia
University, made a somewhat moving criticism of both
East and West, because in his view they were intent
upon what he called a race in armaments. Some people
even say that a race in armaments is a cause of war—
but nobody actually wills a " race " ; and I personally
would rather pity both sides than blame them, for I
think that the race in armaments, and even the war that
seems to result from it, are caused rather by that tragic
human predicament, that situation of Hobbesian fear.
All that we can say is that the predicament would not
exist, of course, if all the world were like St. Francis of
Assisi, and if human nature in general were not streaked
with cupidities. The predicament, the race in arma-
ments and the war itself are explained in the last resort,
therefore, as the result of man's universal sin. Similarly,